This topic, like many others we have explored, continues to provoke
disagreement among the brethren. Proponents cite numerous passages of Scripture,
quote "expert opinion" and make logical assumptions, while opponents do the
same. Both are equally positive they are right and the other side is wrong.
So with this being the case, can such issues be completely resolved this side
of glory? Our belief is that because of human nature the answer is, unfortunately,
"Not likely." The Holy Spirit leads those to the truth who have a willingness
to learn and remain open to concepts that are sometimes contrary to what they
have been taught. Dogmatism is good up to a point, but stubborness is not.

As I tried to illustrate in my last article, "Rightly Dividing The Word Of
Truth" (www.cuttingedge.org/articles/p235.html),
nearly all such disputes arise over precise interpretation of certain words
and terms. And this particular issue is no different. In every instance of its
use in the Bible, the English word "wine"--because of its very definition--denotes
an alcoholic beverage. But there remains a question as to the legitimacy of
one word accurately translating different Hebrew and Greek words (of which there
are several) used to describe the "fruit of the vine". And when one consults
lexicons about those words translated as "wine," a definitive answer that is
beyond dispute is elusive to say the least. But common sense would seem to dictate
that, as important as the juice of the grape was to people in Bible times,
there had to be a term that at the very least implied, or allowed, a
difference between fermented and unfermented. A case in point is the English
word "cider"--which, according to the dictionary--can refer to either
fermented or unfermented juice.

To insist, as some do, that the Hebrew words yayin, tirosh, chamar,
asis, sobe, chomets, shekar, shemarim, ashishah, mesek and the
Greek oinos and gleukos always denotes fermented wine--because
their use in certain contexts clearly show them to be--defies logic. Common
sense indicates that one or more of the words in each language either specifies
unfermented juice or has a dual meaning like the word "cider." And I hope
to prove that such conclusions are largely based upon dogmatic assertions
made by some who failed to check all the available evidence.

If there is one thing I have learned in my 65 years, it is that the
majority opinion is not always a safe haven. Under the best of circumstances,
good men make honest mistakes. And if they are respected scholars, the
mistakes usually multiply because students and others adopt them as being
"gospel." So we must exercise caution when we approach the Word of God
and rely on the Holy Spirit to be our Teacher. The opinions of men can
be very helpful, but we must take them all with "a grain of salt." And
that same principle most definitely applies to my own thoughts on this
matter. You must weigh the evidence and decide for yourself.

QUESTION: WAS THE LIQUID CONSUMED AT THE LAST SUPPER FERMENTED WINE?

I have read quite a few passionate arguments in which the affirmative
is stoutly defended. In them numerous quotes by respected Christian pastors
and teachers are cited and I have no doubt that each and every one of them
reflect a sincere position on the matter. But the essence of all their
arguments revolve around three major points: (1) The wine had to be fermented
because grape juice could not be preserved. (2) Many authorities contacted
by them--particularly those who were Jewish-- agree that it was fermented.
And (3) Prior to the "temperance movement" and onset of Prohibition, most
Protestant denominations used fermented wine in communion services.

But before we address these major points, it is imperative that we establish
a Scriptural frame of reference. And I think it entirely safe to say that
most will agree the liquid in question represents the blood of Jesus
Christ. (Only a few within Protestantism who still cling to the Roman
Catholic position of "transubtantiation" will insist that the liquid literally
becomes
the blood of Christ when ingested--but that is another subject entirely
and will not be addressed here). That representation is found in the following
passsage:

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you" Luke
22:20 (KJV).

Another point in which there is virtually unanimous
agreement is that the blood of Jesus Christ was incorruptible and without
sin.

As we can see from these passages, the point
is firmly established that the Messiah was to see no corruption and in
fact did not when God raised Him from among the dead. And we should
recognize that both the resurrection and the incorruption were supernatural,
because technically speaking decomposition of a dead body begins immediately
upon death. The effects, such as odor, etc., can be delayed by a cool temperature,
but decay begins immediately. In carefully controlled tests, some cadaver
dogs have demonstrated the ability to detect a dead body in as little as
1.5 hours after death--with all the rest of the control group doing so
in 3.5 to 5 hours--thus demonstrating how quickly chemical decomposition
takes place.

Another area of agreement is that Christ's body
is represented by unleavened bread--bread in which leaven (a picture of
sin throughout the Bible) was not allowed. That commandment to omit leaven
goes all the way back to the first Passover when the children of Israel
were instructed to eat unleavened bread as a memorial to their being spared
from the death of the first-born in Egypt. And of course that prohibition
placed upon the bread rendered it fit to serve as a symbol of the sinless
body of the Messiah, Jesus Christ--a point He made clear to His Apostles
at the Last Supper:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take,
eat; this is my body" Matthew 26:26 (KJV)

But when we come to the symbolism of the "cup,"
many good men insist Christ's blood must be represented by fermented wine--not
grape juice.

"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and
gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; [28] For this is my blood
of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
Matthew 26:27-28 (KJV)

The central point of their argument is that grape
juice contains albumen, or gluten--a leavening type substance also found
in human blood--which, they claim, renders it unfit as a symbol of sinless
perfection. So, to overcome this difficulty it must be allowed to ferment
wherein the alcohol generated will eventually kill the leavening agent.
Thus it becomes "pure and preserved". But this is an incorrect understanding
of scientific facts! Fermented wine still contains yeast spores and several
types of bacteria. Let oxygen get to it and the alcohol will decompose
further and become acetic acid--vinegar. Because of this principle, wine
bottled in the traditional manner is put in horizontal racks so that the
corks will remain wet and swelled--thereby insuring an air-tight seal at
the neck. If the seal fails, further fermentation will occur. Obviously
if wine were truly pure and preserved, this could not happen.

But beyond the basic science involved, it has
apparently never occured to these brethren that they are attempting to
symbolize blood that has not "seen" corruption
with
a substance that is unquestionably the product of it.
Fermentation is a process of decay--of decomposition--and Christ's precious
blood did not experience any degree of corruption and most definitely
was not the product of it. See Acts 13:37 above! The word "corruption"
translates the Greek word diaphthora, which according to Strong's
Concordance means "decay."

"But I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot
[become partakers of eternal salvation and] inherit or share in the kingdom
of God; nor does the perishable (that which is decaying) inherit or share
in the imperishable (the immortal)" 1 Cor. 15:50 (Parallel
Bible, KJV/Amplified, emphasis mine).

Furthermore, to emphasize the fallacy of that
line of reasoning, the same principle should hold true for the bread. "What
is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If we leaven the
bread, baking will kill the bacterial leavening agent and it will wind
up "pure." But God clearly said to get rid of every trace of leaven to
prepare for Passover--not depend upon the baking process to kill it. Light
and fluffy bread is the product of leavening and is more palatable to our
flesh. In like manner alcoholic wine is the product of leavening and has
always been highly prized by the world. Discriminating vinophiles prefer
certain wines to be old--aged for many years--and they are usually very
costly. The Lord verified this when He stated:

"No man also having drunk old wine straightway
desireth new: for he saith, The old is better" Luke 5:39 (KJV)

But in instituting the Lord's Table, He said:

"I say to you, I shall not drink again of this fruit
of the vine until that day when I drink it with you new
and of superior quality in My Father's kingdom"
Matthew 26:29 (Parallel
Bible, KJV/Amplified, emphasis mine).

The point that must be stressed is that there
is absolutely no word or phrase in Matthew 26:29 or Mark 14:25 that
identifies beyond question what was actually in the cup. Neither is
there in 1 Corinthians 11:25 where the Apostle Paul reiterates the Lord's
Words relative to the communion service. So to assume otherwise is not
wise when irrefutable facts are not in evidence. The emblem of "the cup"
at the Last Supper instituted something
totally new because nowhere
in the Old Testament do we find a reference to a beverage of any kind being
associated with Passover. And even though it is said the Jewish tradition
at the time of Christ was to consume four cups of alcoholic wine during
that meal--if so, it was done without any specific commandment from
God. And holding such additions to be doctrine was condemned by the
Lord when He said:

"....... Thus have ye made the commandment
of God of none effect by your tradition. [7] Ye hypocrites, well did
Esaias prophesy of you, saying, [8] This people draweth nigh unto me with
their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from
me. [9] But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men. Matthew 15:6b-9 (KJV, emphasis mine)

What is apparently being overlooked by many is
that while unleavened bread has always pictured the body of Christ, up
to and including the Last Supper the actual blood of the sacrificial animal
was used--not an emblem.
So when the Lord said, "This cup is the new testament in My blood," I respectfully
submit to you that He introduced something entirely new and used "new wine"--the
unfermented juice of the grape--as an emblem of His blood.

Oh, but many insist the words neosoinos
or
gleukos
(or
the Hebrew equivalent tiros) at times translated "new wine," always
refers to fermented wine. But if that is
the case, then what term in the Bible describes the "must"--from the Latin
mustum,
meaning "new"--the expressed juice of fresh grapes?According
to their arguments, there is none--because they insist that each and every
instance where the word "wine" is used denotes fermented wine. I do
not know about you, but I find it extermely difficult to believe that as
important as grapes were to their economy--no word in the entire Bible
would be used to describe the fresh juice. Therefore, I view it as just
common sense to assert "new wine" was a generic term describing the must--whether
absolutely fresh or that which had begun to ferment. Why? Because Websters
Dictionary defines
must
as: "Unfermented or
fermenting juice, especially from grapes." And I believe the following
statement made by the Lord illustrates that principle:

"Neither is new
wine put in old wineskins; for if it is, the
skins burst and are torn in pieces, and the wine is spilled and the skins
are ruined. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both
are preserved" Matthew 9:17 (Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified, emphasis mine)

No knowledgeable person would intentionally
put juice that has begun to ferment into wineskins, old or new!
And the reason is certainly not as is usually argued by those who insist
old skins are brittle and not elastic. Once "new wine" begins to
ferment a wooden barrel with steel bands would burst under the strain of
the carbon dixode released--much less a new animal skin, no matter
how elastic it might be! It is said that there is roughly a 500 to1 expansion
of gas generated and "basement explosions" have attained legendary status
among those who attempt to make and bottle their own wine at home! Wineskins
are kept tighly sealed in normal use--if for no other reason than to keep
insects out! And I strongly suspect that the flexible skin is pressed after
each use to expel as much air as possible before putting the stopper back
in the end of it. Oxygen and airborne yeast spores are always a threat
to cause fermentation--whether the liquid is juice or alcoholic wine.

According to my research, in Bible times one did
not put freshly filtered "must" or fermented wine into a skin without first
rendering the skin "fresh" by fumigating it with sulfur smoke to kill latent
yeast spores and bacteria. To do otherwise was to invite rapid fermentation
and ruin of both the liquid and the skin. Old skins became more and more
difficult to sterilize because of the gradual build-up and absorption of
trace amounts of albumen left in the juice after it had been strained.
But to put either liquid into a fumigated skin would result in both being
preserved (longer without fermentation taking place). But absolute preservation--contrary
to claims made of alcoholic wine--is not possible due to the relatively
low percentage (10-12%) of alcohol present. As has already been stated,
alcoholic wine will continue to ferment and deteriorate into vinegar if
subjected to oxygen and a leavening agent.

Therefore, we must insist that "new wine"--in
at least some, if not all instances where it is thus translated--refers
to fresh grape juice that had
nearly all of the albumen removed.
One hundred percent removal was no more possible than the complete removal
of all yeast spores from the unbaked bread. The air we breathe is filled
with such microscopic spores--so absolute sterilization of either is out
of the question. However, omitting the leaven and straining out the albumen
came close enough for practical purposes.

Since grape juice contains albumen (it is sometimes
referred to as "gluten", or "yeast"), how could it be rendered fit
to serve as a symbol of the blood of Christ? This brings us to major point
#1 cited earlier: That is, grape juice could not be preserved without
fermentation taking place, so of necessity alcoholic wine had to be used
by the Lord at the Last Supper to represent the New Testament in His blood.

When logic is based upon false assumptions, conclusions
are nearly always off target. And that is most definitely the case here!
The ancients--despite protestations to the contrary--were very adept at
preserving "the fruit of the vine" in a state of near-freshness. And it
is far beyond the scope of this article to fully explore them all, but
suffice it to say that the book ""Bible Wines or The Laws of Fermentation,"
("The Challenger Press," ISBN: 0-86645-046-7) written by William Patton
in the 1800's and later edited by M.L. Moser, does a credible job
of citing the evidence. And we will quote but a portion of the sections
devoted to "Filtration" and "Subsidence" because they are most pertinent
to our present discussion:

FILTRATION

"By filtration, the gluten or yeast is separated
from the juice of the grape. Whilst the juice will pass through the filtering
implements, the gluten will not, and, being thus separated, the necessary
conditions of fermentation are destroyed.

Donovan, already quoted, states, that, 'if
the juice be filtered and deprived of its gluten or ferment, the production
of alcohol is impossible.' Dr. Ure says, as previously stated, that fermentation
may be prevented 'by the separation of the yeast either by the filter or
by subsistence........"

"On the works of Horace, 'vina liques,' Car.
lib.
i ode ii., the Delphin Notes says: 'Be careful to prepare for yourself
wine percolated and defecated by the filter, and thus rendered sweet and
more in accordance with nature and a female taste.' Again: 'The ancients
filtered and defecated their must repeatedly before it could have fermented;
and thus the faeces which nourish the strength of the wine being taken
away, they rendered the wine itself more liquid, weaker, lighter and sweeter,
and more pleasant to drink.'--Bible Commentary, p.168, and
Nott, London
Edition, p.79......'

"Gluten is as indispensable to fermentation,
whether vinous or acetous, as is sugar. It is a most insoluble body until
it comes in contact with the oxygen of the atmosphere; but by frequent
filtering of the newly-pressed juice, the gluten is separated from the
juice, and thus fermentation prevented....."

SUBSIDENCE

"Chemical science teaches that the gluten may
be so effectually separated from the juice by subsidence as to prevent
fermentation. The gluten, being heavier than the juice, will settle to
the bottom by its own weight if the mass can be kept from fermentation
for a limited period. Chemistry tells us that, if the juice is kept at
a temperature below 45 degrees, it will not ferment. The juice being kept
cool, the gluten will settle to the bottom, and the juice, thus deprived
of the gluten, cannot ferment. Dr. Ure says: 'By lowering the temperature
to 45 degrees, if the fermenting mass becomes clear at this temperature
and be drawn off from the subsided yeast, it will not ferment again, though
it should be heated to the proper pitch." ---Bible Commentary, p. 168.

Pliny, liber xiv. c. 9, when speaking of a
wine called Aigleuces, that is, always sweet, says: 'Id evemt cura.' 'That
wine is produced by care.' He then gives the method: 'Mergunt eam protinus
in aqua cados donec bruma transeat et consuetudo fiat algendi.' 'They plunge
the casks, immediately after they are filled from the vat, into water,
until winter has passed away and the wine has acquired the habit of being
cold.' Kitto, ii. 955; A.-B. 217; Smith's Antiquities. Being
kept below 45 degrees, the gluten settled to the bottom, and thus fermentation
was prevented.

Columella give the recipe: 'Vinum dulce sic
facere oportet.' 'Gather the grapes and expose them for three days to the
sun; on the fourth, at mid-day, tread them; take the mustum lixivium; that
is, the juice which flows into the lake before you use the press, and ,
when it has settled, add one ounce of powered iris; strain the
wine from its faeces, and pour it into a vessel. This wine will be sweet,
firm or durable, and healthy to the body.' --Nott, London Ed. 213;
A.-B. 216.

We notice in this recipe: 1, the lixivium,
which the lexicon (Leverette) defines 'must, which flows spontaneously
from grapes before they are pressed;' 2, this is allowed to settle,
and
then it is strained or filtered. Here are three combined operations to
prevent fermentation.

The same author, liber xii. cap. 29 (see
Nott and A.-B. 216), mentions a recipe: 'That your must may always
be as sweet as when it is new, thus proceed: Before you apply the press
to the fruit, take the newest must from the lake, put into a new amphora,
bung
it up, and cover it very carefully with pitch, lest any water should enter;
then immerse it in a cistern or pond of pure cold water, and allow no part
of the amphora to remain above the surface. After forty days, take it out,
and will remain sweet for a year.' Prof. C. Anthon gives the same recipe
in his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. We here notice:
1, that the newest--the unfermented juice--is taken; 2, it is put in a
new
amphora
or jar free from all ferment from former use; 3, the air is perfectly excluded;
4, it is immersed in cold water for forty days. Being below 45 degrees,
fermentation could not commence. Thus there was ample time for the gluten
to settle at the bottom, thus leaving the juice pure and sweet....."

(Note: The "lake" mentioned above, refers to the catch basin at the
wine press site--not a body of water.)

The book lists quote after quote taken from many sources dating back
to Bible times, or earlier, in which it was stated the unfermented juice
of the grape was the preferred drink of the people. So the assumption that
it could not be preserved is without basis in fact. Plus
we must note that in the process of preservation, the "leaven"--the albumen--was
taken out, thereby rendering it fit to serve as a symbol for Christ's precious
blood. The resultant juice was natural, pure, and--most importantly--"saw
no corruption."

Point #2 of the objections, mentioned at the beginning, is that many
authorities contacted by them--particularly those who were Jewish-- agree
that the wine used at the Last Supper was fermented.

We must answer by pointing out all of us have a definite tendency to
seek out those who agree with our position and then cite as many as possible
to bolster our argument. But truth is found in facts, logic based upon
facts, and not numbers of those who agree with a particular position--no
matter how tempting it is to refer to them.

Point #3, that prior to the "temperance movement" and onset of
Prohibition, most Protestant denominations used fermented wine in communion
services.

To this we merely have to point out the tradition of the Roman Catholic
Church was to use alcholic wine and it doubtless "rubbed off" on many of
the Protestants who came out of her. Such traditions become ingrained in
people and only time and reflection upon God's Word will erase them. A
few Protestants still stubbornly cling to transubstantiation, but most
rejected that position long ago as being false.

So in closing, I want to point out that most proponents of alcoholic
wine nearly always include a caveat concerning the inherent danger of its
misuse. One writer said that because of that potential he was a total abstainer,
except in the cases of "sacramental wine and medicinal use". He even included
a chapter in his book that was entitled "Snake In A Bottle," to caution
against excessive use of wine. And because they
admit there is an inherent danger, I marvel that such individuals cannot
see the obvious symbolic contradiction in their position! The
precious blood of Jesus Christ is to be enjoyed to the fullest by all who
are "thirsty". And there is certainly no warning in the Word of God
urging sinners to exercise caution when doing so:

"In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me,
and drink" John 7:37 (KJV)

Those who are dehydrated and thus truly thirsty
want to quench that thirst by drinking as much as possible as quickly as
possible. And this definitely invites inebriation if alcohol is present:

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is
excess; but be filled with the Spirit" Ephes. 5:18 (KJV, emphasis mine).

Just ask yourself this question: "Is it possible
to have an excess of the blood of Christ?"

So since any portrayal of the precious blood of
Christ as being potentially harmful in any shape, form, or fashion is clearly
unthinkable--the symbol representing
it must be completely safe as well.

If you have been born again and received Jesus Christ as your personal
Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you
need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly
forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then,
you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.

If you have never placed your trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior, but have
come to sense His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to receive
His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can do so now, in the privacy of your home.
Once you truly believe in Him as Lord and Savior, you are spiritually Born Again,
and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest
assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually. If you
would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation
Page now.

We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate
and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order—Kingdom
of Antichrist—in their daily news.